Has Kucinich ever explained his pro-war vote?

[XemaSab]

:shrug:


Yeas:

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)


Nay:

Lee

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

[HopeHoops]

1. Yes: "Man, that was one NASTY ass hangover." n/t

[Mudoria]

2. "The alien's made me do it" ?

[redqueen]

3. He changed his mind? Like he did re: his anti-choice votes?

:shrug:

[LostInAnomie]

9. Shhh... Gods don't change their minds.

This vote is obviously a trick by the Devil. Kind of like how he planted Dinosaur bones in rocks.

[redqueen]

15. I'm to the point now that I'm embarrassed I ever took the guy seriously.

In his stump speeches in '03 he was going on and on about how we needed a military action in Afghanistan, and didn't need a full on war there, and I agreed. I had no idea he fucking voted for the damn thing. Shame on me.

[NYC_SKP]

4. "Oh No You Did-Unt!"

:rofl:

[LostInAnomie]

5. You should know by now that DK is never questioned.

He is magic, peace, and love personified and delivered to congress by a benevolent Earth Goddess.

[Chulanowa]

6. Sanders and McKinney too?

Who'da thunk it?

Oh well, 2001 never happened. Afghanistan started on January 21, 2009 - I know it's true 'cause DU tells me so.

[redqueen]

8. Before that, you could say that you thought we needed more troops in Afghanistan

and not expect DUers to tell you to enlist, or call you a chickenhawk.

[LostInAnomie]

16. Haha...

True!

[Chulanowa]

111. Yeah, funny how that happened.

'Course, Bush was whiter than an irishman's thighs, so we could trust him to escalate... This new guy? well, gee, I just don't know about him... :eyes:

[redqueen]

112. "whiter than an irishman's thighs"

:rofl:

But yeah... what an interesting observation that is. I want to think that no, it's really about the amount of time we've been there... but I wonder about the reason for the radical shift.

[Chulanowa]

117. A long long time ago in a city far, far away...

Bush used one of his very few intelligent-sounding phrases - "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Though his response to this idea was laughable and utterly counter-productive, the phrase itself is sound. Saying "we're going to lower our expectations because of your race / sex / etc" is very obviously bigotry.

The other side is the weird bigotry of unreasonable expectations. We've all heard of this, the instances where a black person, or a woman, or whoever has to do twice the work twice as well in order to get equal recognition? A good example is in the reconstruction-era south, when newly freed slaves were entering public office. Their northenr allies expected literal miracles of them, in spite of many of these men being unable to read or write, being constant targets of violence, having no money to work with and facing the fact that each of their states was in total shambles. when these brave men proved incapable of doing better than white politicians had done in better times, they were ditched by the north and the southern system backslid into serfdom.

I can't help but see this pattern playing with Obama. My fellow DU'ers obviously expected the man to clean up eight years' worth of fuckup in as many months, and when he failed to do so, he was judged a failure, and now all his backers are screaming and waving their arms in the air like irate gibbons. Is it due to his race? In part, I believe so - He has the misfortune of being a "first" and so people, for some dumb damn reason, are going to expect miraculous, heroic things of him, Just Like On TV™. Tack this on with hte double standard that all minority politicians labor under - whether that minority is race, gender, sexuality, or even politics - and you've got a mess.

[redqueen]

118. God, what a depressing post.

I think you're likely spot on, and IMO this deserves to be an OP.

[Chulanowa]

119. I may just do that

It's been floating around in my head lately, among other not-so-sunshiny notions.

[XemaSab]

125. If you do this, look up what a "magic negro" is

and throw that in there too. :(

[Chulanowa]

141. I'm well aware

Similar notions include the Kung Fu Master and the Wise Old Indian.

[XemaSab]

142. You mean that Asians and Native Americans

are not natural born fonts of wisdom? :P

[MilesColtrane]

120. What?

He's not the Bagger Vance of foreign policy?

[XemaSab]

124. Wow

I think you're spot on. :(

[berni_mccoy]

7. He was Pro-Life then, so it was ok to kill brown ppl on the other side of the world.

[Oregone]

10. That was such a fucked up time in the US

[mmonk]

11. And this is supposed to justify what exactly?

[Junkdrawer]

14. Just how indefensible Obama has become...

I guess :shrug:

[Individualist]

19. +1

[KG]

39. +infinity and beyond!

[HughMoran]

12. You just don't understand politics

:rofl:

[Bobbie Jo]

13. ***cue the cricketts**

So does this make him a...

Warmonger?
Ex-Warmonger?
Reformed-Warmonger?
Recovering-Warmonger?



:shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

18. Crow-eating, recovering-Anti-Choice, UFO-Warmonger

[Bobbie Jo]

25. !

:spank: :rofl: :rofl:

[rudy23]

26. How many points for hitting all those terms?

You certainly don't miss a beat.

[Bobbie Jo]

33. Yeah...that was at least a $30 post.

...but I guarantee if you got a dollar for every "DLC" usage per post, you could retire today. :rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

106. LOL!

[Zodiak]

17. Here is the text of the vote

"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States."


We have not attacked Saudi Arabia yet, as far as I know....or Yemen. But nice try at further ridiculing and marginalizing the left using half-baked arguments. You also just showed that Kucinich is not a knee-jerk pacifist who is against ANY use of force, which is a great big strawman I have seen thrown around here by those that want to justify this escalation.

[Cerridwen]

49. Additional detail.

DETAIL FOR 2001 HOUSE ROLL CALL VOTE 342
Vote Date: 14-Sep-2001
Yeas: 420, Nays: 1

Peace Action

Use of Force Authorization/Passage.

Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against the nations, organizations or people that he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. The use of force is also granted against States that harbored such organizations or people. Passed. (Under a unanimous consent agreement, the House subsequently passed an identical Senate-passed resolution (SJ Res 23) clearing the measure for the president.). link

[Zodiak]

58. I read that

Still no mention of Afghanistan...no mention at all, so it can hardly be used as a big weapon to hit DK with over Afghanistan as it is being used today by those who want to justify this escalation. As far as planned, authorized, and committed...that was the Saudis.

And DK put out a statement with his vote.....if you want more detail, read that, as well.

[Cerridwen]

98. You mean the statement I posted in post #20? That statement?

Yeah. Read it. Posted it.

Glad you agree.

[Zodiak]

110. That would be the statement, yes.

No mention of Afghanistan in there, either, and a lot of caveats as to how narrow he would like such authorization to be. don't know if I agree with you, Cerridwen, mostly because I do not know what you were arguing.

Those posting his vote without context (as I have seen) want DUers to think it was an unthoughtful, uncritical vote for unending war with Afghanistan. Of course, things are much more complex than that.

I bet DK would want that vote back knowing what it has caused over the years and how loosely it was interpreted.

[Cerridwen]

115. Actually, I'm not really arguing anything.

I was just pointing out that he'd made a statement. It kind of took on a life of its own after that. :D

I think a lot of them might have voted differently had they known they were creating a unitary president and what shrub was up to.

[Zodiak]

123. on that I definitely agree n/t

[harun]

93. Since it says "He" and is referring directly to B*sh does that mean

Obama isn't authorized to use force under this provision?

[Cerridwen]

100. It says "the president."

It was a joint resolution passed in 2001.

The current president is Mr. Obama. Is the resolution still in place? What's your question?

[harun]

105. It says that "he" determines planned

So what? any president can determine any nation planned it and go to war with anyone for ever?

Idiot Republicans in charge at the time are to thank for the bullsh*t wording of that resolution. Very irresponsible of them to basically give an open ended ticket for war with anyone under the umbrella of 9/11.

[Cerridwen]

116. "So what? any president can determine any nation planned it and go to war with anyone for ever?"

Looks that way, doesn't it?

"Idiot Republicans in charge at the time are to thank for the bullsh*t wording of that resolution." Along with the 420 Yeas from both sides of the aisle.

A mistake? A grab for power depending which party is in the White House? I notice "our" side didn't give up the scepter that was passed to them.

[Cerridwen]

20. Yes, he did. ETA - he said so the day of the vote. Sept 14, press release

Kucinich Statement On Authorizing Force On Those Responsible For Recent Terrorist Acts Against The U.S.


On Friday, September 14, 2001, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland) spoke on the House floor explaining his reasons for supporting the resolution authorizing the President to use force on those responsible for the recent terrorist acts against the United States. Following is the text of his statement.

Washington, Sep 14 -

I will support this resolution authorizing the President to defend our country. Whatever forms of action we choose must reflect our democratic principles and distinguish us from the mentality of terrorists and destructive violence. Our actions must pursue a path towards reducing violence, not escalating violence. Launching weapons of mass destruction or collateral attacks against innocent civilians would be no different than the terror we have already had brought upon us. An eye for an eye mentality is unacceptable. We are a nation with civil and moral values and we must show the world that. These terrorist attacks were clearly a crime against humanity. What does a democracy do to punish criminals? We put them on trial, if found guilty, we imprison them.

U.S. military action should be centered on arresting the responsible parties, and the governments should place the suspects on trial. That is how we win this. This is how we should show the world that we are a humane and democratic nation. That is what gives us the moral high ground. That is what we need to do to prevent future attacks. Future attacks will not be prevented because terrorists fear our military. To kill them does not scare them. That is an honor for them to be killed. But for our democracy it is important to rise above their violent attacks and punish them with unquestionable moral superiority. That will vindicate our highest principles. Violence is reciprocal in nature. Peace is also reciprocal. The direction we take will speak volumes about our democracy. We must and we will defend our country. And we must and we will pursue and arrest these criminals. We must do so in a manner that upholds democratic principles.

I was actually able to find this link at Dennis' site within just a few minutes. Amazing how wanting the facts rather than just wanting to insinuate shit can do that for a person.

What exactly was your particular mindset in the days just following 9/11?

[orwell]

27. Why didn't Barbara Lee vote for it? n/t

[Cerridwen]

35. According to a quote I found on google news from that time frame,

she said,

"We need to step back," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "We're grieving. We need to step back and think about this so that it doesn't spiral out of control. We have to make sure we don't make any mistakes."

<snip>

She does not rule out military action, she says, but she voted against the authorization to use force because she opposes giving the president the sole decision on when and where to make war. "I believe we must make sure that Congress upholds its responsibilities and upholds checks and balances. This is a representative democracy and it's our responsibility."

I found it at this link of a wapo article.

You suppose you could do your own research in the future rather than expecting others to support your straw(wo)men?

Thanks.

[orwell]

43. Doesn't that sound more responsible than Kucinich?

It's the same thing I said at the time.

Why would Dennis authorize a sociopath like Bush? Doesn't that speak to his judgment?

[Selatius]

46. Barbara Lee never painted her opposition in terms of Bush being a sociopath.

Her words imply that that period was a time to grieve, not a time to fight. The vote was taken on 14 Sept. 2001.

[redqueen]

48. He was still anti-choice at the time, that speaks to his judgment as well.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020527/pollitt

He has quietly amassed an anti-choice anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

When I spoke with Kucinich by phone, he seemed to be looking for a way to put some space between himself and his record. "I believe life begins at conception"--Kucinich was raised as a Catholic--"and that it doesn't end at birth." He said he favored neither a Human Life Amendment that would constitutionally protect "life" from the moment of conception, nor the overturning of Roe v. Wade (when asked by Planned Parenthood in 1996 whether he supported the substance of Roe, however, he told them he did not). He spoke of his wish to see abortion made rare by providing women with more social supports and better healthcare, by requiring more responsibility from men and so on. He presented his votes as votes not against abortion per se but against federal funding of the procedure. Unfortunately, his record does not easily lend itself to this reading: He voted specifically against allowing Washington, DC, to fund abortions for poor women with nonfederal dollars and against permitting female soldiers and military dependents to have an abortion in overseas military facilities even if they paid for it themselves. Similarly, although Kucinich told me he was not in favor of "criminalizing" abortion, he voted for a partial-birth-abortion ban that included fines and up to two years in jail for doctors who performed them, except to save the woman's life. What's that, if not criminalization?

[Cerridwen]

55. And Obama had Rick Warren give the Inaugural Invocation.

What does that say of his judgement? If you're gonna do apples to manxs, I'll play.

Because, that's what this thread is, comparing Obama's judgement to Kucinich's. One is the President who has no voting record in the national Congress in 2001; the other is a Representative who does. I wonder how Obama would have voted in that same situation in that same time.

[redqueen]

74. I made my point.

You go on believing that Kucinich is some paragon of politican virtue if that works for you.

I'll stick with the ones that deal with the real world, and actually try to make real progress.

[Cerridwen]

83. Thanks for putting thoughts in my head that don't exist.

Geez, is it really so impossible for people to think some of us support the best that we can find in a truly fucked up system until such time as the system can be improved?

The "real world" you're looking for is 100% perfect politician and you think that's "real?" No wonder you can't imagine someone accepting fewer faults without projecting that they're "worshiping" a politician.

[redqueen]

86. No, that is not the world I'm looking for.

The fact that you have so far failed to comprehend that what I'm actually doing is pointing out that NO politician is perfect and those (like Kucinich) who try to pretend they are get NOTHING done... I think that means I'm wasting my time attempting to have a discussion with you.

[Cerridwen]

91. Really?

"He was still anti-choice at the time, that speaks to his judgment as well." <--about Kucinich

"You go on believing that Kucinich is some paragon of politican virtue if that works for you." <-- about Kucinich and something I didn't say.

"I'm actually doing is pointing out that NO politician is perfect and those (like Kucinich) who try to pretend they are get NOTHING done." <-- except you didn't. You used only Kucinch rather than oh, so many politicians out there. You could have myriad examples.

Seems your needle is stuck in a groove.

Your hero proved to have "feet of clay." That really sucks. I wish I had the luxury of having heros.

[redqueen]

92. Hero.... lol.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[Cerridwen]

97. You, too.

"In his stump speeches in '03 he was going on and on about how we needed a military action in Afghanistan, and didn't need a full on war there, and I agreed. I had no idea he fucking voted for the damn thing. Shame on me."

:hi:

[redqueen]

99. LOL

Still trying eh?

That doesn't seem the slightest bit obsessive. Nope, not at all.

[Cerridwen]

102. Just keeping up with the traffic...

and trying to avoid cleaning out the shed.

Procrastination could be confused as obsession by someone who's in denial.

[Cerridwen]

52. 420 Yeas. Why are you zeroing in on but one of them?

Please explain the other 419. Perhaps you can borrow LostInAnomie's crystal ball(s).

Thanks.

[LostInAnomie]

66. Maybe because the other 419 aren't being held up as models of purity...

... or brilliance and insight on Afghanistan by adoring followers that refuse to take a critical look at his votes.

[Cerridwen]

70. Neither is Kucinich; though you'd have to get your jerking knee out

of the way of your line of vision to see such.

It's a balancing act to find a politician we could maybe, might, support who maybe, might, support our issues in a few more instances than some other politician.

I'm a "rabid" feminist. I don't have the luxury of finding a politician who comes even 60% close to my ideals much less 100%. Why I see people posting either s/he's 100% or s/he "doesn't represent me," on a board on which supposedly intelligent people post, is beyond me.

If you hate the Kucinich "hero worship," why not just hide the threads? Purity doesn't exist in politics. If that bothers you, you might want to avoid politics completely.

[LostInAnomie]

80. If I hid all of the "DK is a saint!" threads there wouldn't be much to see on here 75% of the time.

DK worship bothers me for the same reason any hero worship bothers me. It holds people up as pillars of virtue without taking a critical look, and then causes the hero worshipers to whine when anyone says anything critical of their hero.

I'm not the one that is claiming purity. It is all the "DK is a real liberal", "DK says this about (fill in a subject)", "If DK runs in 2012, will you vote for him?" threads that are insinuating that DK is pure as the driven snow. If some people can't stand having their hero's cynicism pointed out, maybe they should take a break from an internet forum.

[Cerridwen]

85. Find one that has my name attached to it. n/t

[LostInAnomie]

29. Oh please...

I guess some people believe the Senate really thought they were voting for "inspections" too when they passed the IWR. :eyes:

He can verbally posture all he wants, but he knew what he was voting for.

[Cerridwen]

37. "...he knew what he was voting for." Crystal ball? Tarot cards?

Mind reading? How do you know what he knew?

Wow, and Rep. Kucinich gets a bad rap for being quoted by Shirley MacLaine as having seen a UFO.

[redqueen]

41. Barbara Lee saw a problem with it.

She also didn't go around trumpeting her opposition in stump speeches after giving her permission.

[Cerridwen]

42. During her campaign for president, you mean?

Yeah, good comparison.

I'm one of the "woo woo," "want a pony" people and I still don't expect everyone I know to agree with me 100% or accept that what I think is right is the definition of what is right. I sure as hell don't expect those we elect to represent me anywhere near 100%. I guess being a cynical, curmudgeon has its upside. I'm less likely to get whiplash supporting then un-supporting those who aren't 100% and who most the time aren't even 50%.

[redqueen]

44. She didn't ever pretend she hadn't given permission.

That is what Kucinich did.

I can't believe I ever thought the guy was any different from any other politician. (Except for the not getting anything done part.)

Live and learn, though, right?

[Cerridwen]

60. Yeah, being asked to account for your votes on the national stage

over and over again is the same as...uh, not.

Since we're playing in the field of pretend, how do you think she might have responded had she been on the national stage and asked repeatedly?

[redqueen]

75. I dunno... was she ever so completely anti-choice as Kucinich was?

I wonder how she'd explain that away... and whether the people who vote for her would have swallowed it so easily as so many of Kucinich's flock have swallowed his explanation for his sudden conversion prior to running for president.

[Cerridwen]

79. Oy. I thought I was a "naive, single-issue" voter.

I suggest you research a whole lot of politicians and how their stances on issues have changed - or not - over the years.

Let me know when you find Mr. or Ms. Perfect. I haven't seen one yet. At least not one whose been able to get elected to office.

[redqueen]

82. I'm not a single issue voter. I'm citing that as an example.

Sorry you missed that. Hope this helped.

[Cerridwen]

84. No, you're a "looking for perfection" voter. Have fun with that. n/t

[redqueen]

87. Reading comprehension. Look into it. (nt)

[Cerridwen]

94. Persuasive writing...

Fail

[LostInAnomie]

45. That's what I love about posturing...

... it gives cynical politicians cover to say "That's not what I voted for" down the road. DK would have had to have been an idiot to not know what he was voting for. He would have had to have not been watching the news, not reading papers, not had access to the internet, etc. Everyone in the country and probably the world knew we were invading Afghanistan and we were going to be there for awhile. All his pretty words are posturing, but a vote for war is still a vote for war.

If you look back at most of the votes for the IWR politicians are saying they are voting for inspections (Clinton, Kerry, etc). Should we naively believe them too?

[Cerridwen]

67. It's called politics. It's a game. It's a deadly game.

It's a rigged, deadly game.

Please explain the other 419 Yeas.

Then, please explain why the only options for our votes are more and more "cynical politicians." Please let me know when you find that saint of a politician because I sure as shit haven't seen one.

[LostInAnomie]

72. I'll explain it the same way.

They were either scared for their lives, scared for their seats, or really for the war. Do you think the unshakable DK was silly enough scared for his life? That either leaves you with the choice of him being for the war, or cynically trying to hang on to his seat. Either way, he doesn't deserve respect, and definitely doesn't deserve to be held up as a paragon of virtue by adoring fans.

[Cerridwen]

Those are the only options you can think of.

They could have been "scared for their lives, scared for their seats, or really for the war." Or they could have thought it was a good plan to find and prosecute, or they could have still had limited knowledge of what had happened, or their constituents could have demanded such a vote, or..., or..., I can think of a lot of scenarios.

How was your emotional and mental state 3 days after 9/11?

[LostInAnomie]

89. As far as I know, I wasn't a congressman in 2001.

I didn't have the mandate to find out all I could about a matter of war before I cast a vote on it. So, I guess I could add an "Ignorant of the facts" category, but that still doesn't bode well for DK.

Any way you try to slice it, DK voted to go to war and bears partial responsibility for the outcome.

[Cerridwen]

96. I guess he's a liar, too? Or you just didn't bother to read his statement?

U.S. military action should be centered on arresting the responsible parties, and the governments should place the suspects on trial. That is how we win this. This is how we should show the world that we are a humane and democratic nation. That is what gives us the moral high ground. That is what we need to do to prevent future attacks. Future attacks will not be prevented because terrorists fear our military. To kill them does not scare them. That is an honor for them to be killed. But for our democracy it is important to rise above their violent attacks and punish them with unquestionable moral superiority. That will vindicate our highest principles. Violence is reciprocal in nature. Peace is also reciprocal. The direction we take will speak volumes about our democracy. We must and we will defend our country. And we must and we will pursue and arrest these criminals. We must do so in a manner that upholds democratic principles. (emphasis added)

"...DK voted to go to war and bears partial responsibility for the outcome." along with 419 other representatives about whom you seem apathetic.

[mmonk]

30. You're putting forth facts, context, and depth. I'm not sure this thread is seeking that.

[Echo In Light]

32. Hategasm thread

[Cerridwen]

73. Ayup.

Either you're with 'em or you're agin 'em; ain't no middle road. Oy.

[Cerridwen]

38. Yeah, I know. A little ol' fly in the ointment, am I. n/t

[G_j]

47. The OP had enough resolve to find the roll call for H J RES 64

but not enough to answer their own question..

[Cerridwen]

71. Consider it the "fox news," ubiquitous question mark in action.

That would explain that particular tactic.

[bananas]

113. Hit and run.

You answered her question, and she didn't even say "thank you".
She hasn't posted any replies in her own thread.

[Cerridwen]

114. Good observation. I was busy posting information and didn't notice.

*chuckle*

[XemaSab]

129. I'm home sick today

I haven't posted any responses because I was taking a nap and doing homework. :(

[G_j]

34. that was easy

some ppl are just lazy I guess.
:shrug:

[Cerridwen]

40. Or counting on the laziness of others. n/t

[XemaSab]

127. That sounds like he knew exactly what he was voting for

:(

[Cerridwen]

130. He voted to hunt and prosecute; if he's to be taken at his word.

Is that what you meant? Those who voted for it voted to hunt and prosecute rather than vote to go to war?

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. It was October 2001 for fucks sake

The whole country was still in shock and confused, and most of them didn't yet realize what pathological liars the Chimpministration were, nor had they read the PNAC agenda. They unfortunately gave Chimpy the benefit of the doubt when he said he needed to hit Afghanistan.

Also there was the historical fact that Al Qaeda WAS established there, by the CIA in the first place. Even though that fact didn't necessarily mean Bin Laden was camping out there in 2001, and indeed, the only "evidence" we have that he was ever there at that time was the word of the Bush Crime Family. Which is about as useful as an air conditioner at the North Pole.

[Echo In Light]

24. Hadn't read the PNAC blueprint, nor the PA when that was signed into law

[treestar]

76. It's the same war

Bush just didn't wage it competently and distracted with Iraq. Why should anyone who voted for it then think it should be walked away from now?

[Romulox]

22. I don't see any inconsistency here.

The current Afghanistan adventure doesn't consitute "the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States," in the first instance...

[rudy23]

23. See my journal entries about how branding us w/ and bashing Kucinich is the DLC's long term strategy

As soon as we put them into office, they attack us with this orchestrated, Rovian talking point crap. Rahm Emanuel is not our friend. He is Karl Rove attacking from the left.

[tonysam]

59. I seriously doubt the DLC gives a flying patootie about Kucinich

His following outside of message boards like this one is virtually zilch.

[redqueen]

63. Exactly. (nt)

[rudy23]

143. They sure care about those who would pressure them from the left.

If they can tar the mainstream with a guy like Kucinich, who does not appeal to the mainstream, they can attempt to marginalize the left.

Of course this will fail, but Rahm Emanuel thinks he can be the next Karl Rove and tell us exactly what to think just like Rove did for his base. This is hubris of the worst degree.

[Selatius]

28. Maybe he wanted to get Osama bin Laden? The vote was taken 14 Sept. 2001.

:shrug: The ruins of the World Trade Center were still on fire, and they were still pulling dead bodies out of there.

[walldude]

50. Shhhh if you tell people the reason we were in Afghanistan

to begin with and they figure out that OBL is not there anymore you might put a crimp in their explanations as to why we need to increase troop levels.

[apnu]

53. Everybody wanted to kick their asses then.

Its amazing how short people's memories are, all these crazed anti-war folks running around today like Obama just started this thing. Where were these people in 2001? When we started rolling troops out to Afghanistan, I didn't see one protest here in Chicago. When we sent troops to Iraq the town when fucking nuts with marches. I distinctly remember, personally, running into 3 of them that year on my way to night school. It was insane.

[Bluerthanblue]

101. not everybody- I was one that didn't- and was quite vocal about it

I also attended vigils with my children with a handful of like minded others. I didn't fly the American Flag in support of war.
My opposition to a military response to 9/11 cost me my relationship with my only living brother-

All that being said, I still support President Obama, and while I wish he had not decided to add troops to Afghanistan as a way of getting us out of there, I respect his decision. And look forward to the day when our combat troops are out of there for good.

[Bluerthanblue]

103. edit- dupe.

.

[ecstatic]

31. This will sink. Don't ever question St. Kucinich! nt

[JVS]

36. This is an interesting exercise in straining our gnats but swallowing camels.

[Ignis]

51. I love the patented DU Vocal Minority Double Standard:

Criticize Obama's choices? You're obviously not a real Democrat, you're just some sort of peacenik anti-war crank who wants to tear down an elected Democratic leader.

Criticize Kucinich's choices? You're obviously a stalwart pillar of the Democratic community, always vigilant against those whose votes don't align perfectly with Democratic ideals.

[redqueen]

54. Please... nobody has a problem with anyone criticizing Obama's choices.

The things that piss people off is stuff like O-bomb-o, third bush administration, an articulate bush, etc.

But then I supposed we're all used to the intellectual dishonesty used by some here in order to play victim.

[Ignis]

78. "nobody has a problem with anyone criticizing Obama's choices"

:spray: :rofl:

Oh, you can not be serious.

Do you really need me to pull up a long list of posts from the past few days that disprove your assertion? And if I do so, are you going to move the goalposts?

[redqueen]

81. No, I'll concede now that there are probably equal numbers of assholes

on both sides of the divide.

But pretending that it's only one side that engages in said assholery is beyond stupid... and that seemed to be what you were doing.

I should have said 'no reasonable DUer has a problem with criticism'... just as no reasonable DUer goes around calling those who support the president's decisions a cheerleader / moron / troll / shill for the DLC.

[Ignis]

104. So you think this OP is entirely fair and above-board?

I see it as an attack on a great Democratic elected official that is intended solely to rile up peace-loving, left-wing DUers.

And when that shoe is on the other foot, there is an incredibly vocal minority on DU who will kick and scream loudly about any real or perceived slight against Obama.

I guess I just don't see the tit-for-tat you describe above, but I'll certainly agree that no reasonable DUer should call Obama names, just as no one should call Kucinich names, make fun of his diet, his wife, his religion, etc.

[XemaSab]

132. Am I calling Kucinich names, or making fun of his religion?

:shrug:

I think my OP is a perfectly fair question to ask of an elected leader. :shrug:

[Ignis]

135. Only if you gave every other (D) Rep the same treatment.

Hell, there are a lot of asshole Blue Dogs that we let in the Big Tent, and they consistently vote against unions, against women's rights, against equality for all, for endless war, for tax cuts for the wealthy, and for anti-Bill-of-Rights crap like the Patriot Act.

But you didn't call out a single one of those elected Democrats, did you?

Because it's much more fun to have a witch hunt against one of the few consistently pro-peace (D) Reps we have in Congress.

[XemaSab]

139. Consistently pro-peace?

More like inconsistently pro-peace.

[Ignis]

140. Sorry, I don't speak "Nuh-uh!" (nt)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Funny thing: The more Obama screws up, the more the Kucinich bashing team comes out

:shrug:

[Echo In Light]

57. Cause and Effect

[tonysam]

61. A few of us criticize BOTH equally.

n/t

[ecstatic]

62. What did Obama screw up? That's just your opinion nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. It's not "just my opinion" that he's mostly continuing Bush's worst policies

:shrug:

[ecstatic]

88. It is just your shrill opinion. nt

[subsuelo]

121. Not when it comes to Afghanistan

[Ignis]

136. "shrill" ...Nice, any other dog whistles in your bag?

:eyes:

[JVS]

64. The funny part is that they actually think this makes Obama look better.

[LostInAnomie]

68. More like, the more DK worshipers come out to lavish praises on their hero...

... others actually take a critical look and don't like what they see.

[PVnRT]

90. When did the DK worshippers come out?

Since the speech last night, I've seen plenty of preemptive strikes against Kucinich, but I've seen no posts OMG KUCINCIH IS AWESOME OBAMA SUCKS PEACE!. Maybe you can link to this rash of pro-Kucinich threads that were posted in response to the President's speech last night.

Feingold and Sanders have both released statements critical of the escalation. Maybe you guys can start posting threads about how EEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL they are, too.

[Ignis]

137. Oh, you meant real posts on DU, not just in their heads?

Sorry, can't help you there. :shrug:

[rudy23]

144. They've been hitting this meme since July.

From a branding standpoint, they're hoping that they can repeat it enough times to "catapault the propaganda" for 2012. By then, they'd like to see the majority of Democrats leaning center right, and for it to be fashionable for them to bash us lefties standing on the outside, relegated to under 5% of the vote.

[Individualist]

77. Absolutely!

DLCers hate progressives.

[XemaSab]

134. I consider myself a true progressive

and I am trying to weed out fake progressives.

Hence the OP.

[Greyhound]

109. They see their delusion/desire crumbling and they are understandably concerned.

The forlorn hope that electing a corporate lapdog would alleviate the inconceivably heavy burden of the corporate welfare system, is crashing down around their ears.

[XemaSab]

133. Obama has screwed up?

How so?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

138. By not undoing the Bush policies he could have undone with an executive order

and by throwing more troops into Afghanistan. Oh, and putting the Wall Street foxes in charge of the bank bailout and economic recovery.

[Ozymanithrax]

69. On December 8th, 1941, Jeanette Rankin casts sole vote against WWII

She was the first woman elected to Congress and the only member of Congress to vote against U.S. involvement in both World Wars.

Clearly, Kucinich is no Rankin.

[Enrique]

95. yes, often

I have heard him many times, running for president twice, participating in dozens of debates, and talking about the wars a lot, mention how he initially supported the Afghan war.

[Tigermoose]

107. Quick, somebody send Him an enlistment link.

nt

[Greyhound]

108. Yes, as shown upthread.

:kick: & U

[Odin2005]

122. Dennis only became a "progressive" just before he jumped into the 2004 prez race.

He was anti-choice, too.

[dusmcj]

126. voting yes on that one was right

whether Kucinich is just another practitioner of gesture politics is a separate question. He does have a hot wife though.

[Political Heretic]

128. Why would he need to?

Perhaps conditions ten years ago were different than conditions now?

Perhaps had he forseen a 9 year quagmire he would have voted differently? Or perhaps not. Right after 9/11 I wanted to go punish "the terrorist" who killed thousands too. Didn't know the outrageous things Bush would have in mind, but if I had been in the house that day, for all I know I would have voted the same way.

Not exactly a real stinging "gotcha" on your part, now is it?

[DemBones DemBones]

131. He doesn't and he's never said he did

not vote for the war on Afghanistan. He has said he thought we were justified in attacking the Taliban because they wouldn't turn over Osama bin Laden. He voted against the war on Iraq -- the OP could waste some more bandwidth by listing the votes from that. . .

But nice try, OP, at making Obama, the faux "anti-war candidate," undeserving "Nobel Peace Prize winner" who just escalated the war in Afghanistan look better.

It doesn't work, though.

[bridgit]

145. I think part of what it explains, and without having to ask; is the level of very serious...

thinking that swirled all around the towers coming down and yeah-yeah-yeah I've gotten over it like it was suggested I do here at DU even after my recalling the loss of decades old friendships that day in those towers but hey - maybe people do move on some sooner some later some never

Now, however, we do not merely have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight where we choose to use it - we have the preferred, *imperial* benefit of cherry picked abstractions and a faded memory of what mobilizes even folks like DK into understanding that the nation needed - well - seemed to need, at that point in time, to be placed into a stance able to respond

The problem for me is not that DK voted the way he did. The problem for me that all that voted for resolve handed the whole kit & caboodle over to g.w. bush/Cheney/Rove and their idiot on-bid crony war profiteering GOP and congress

[winyanstaz]

146. yes...at the time he believed the government just like the rest of us did..

We were just attacked..of course he approved it based on what information they had at the time.
At least he was man enough to say we shouldnt be there when he found out the truth.
There is nothing for him to be ashamed of in that vote at that time.
You however is another story.